Daniel Frey wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:08:24 +0200, Pavel Vozenilek wrote: > >> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... >> SMART_ASSERT library implements BOOST_HAS_CURRENT_FUNCTION equivalent >> (it would be ugly to print out the default text). > > Log-output again. And look at that workaround they used: > Runtime-checking the values. Isn't that ugly? (No offense intended > to the SMART_ASSERT-folks :)
Yes, it's ugly to see "Assertion failed in function (unknown)". The ugliness provides a strong incentive for people to submit patches that make BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION work on the compilers they are interested in. That's the goal. Sneaky, huh. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
